Allowed

Sri. Shekara v. Principal Secretary to Govt

Karnataka HC20 Jun 2024WP/6338/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka quashed departmental proceedings instituted after the plaintiff retired, finding they violated the four-year limitation rule in the Karnataka Civil Services Rules. The Court noted a period of inaction since 2018 and ordered fresh proceedings with a report on the outcome.

What did the court decide?

In the petition is allowed, and the second respondent's Orders and Articles of Charge dated 11.07.2022, 10.08.2022 and 29.10.2022 are quashed. The second respondent is directed to initiate proceedings

Sri. Shekara Vs Principal Secretary to Govt — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:22127 WP No. 6338 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 6338 OF 2024 (S-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI. SHEKARA AGE 65 YEARS, RETIRED ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, RESIDING AT NO.683, VIJAYANAGARA 1^ST STAGE, 10^TH CROSS, 10^TH MAIN MYSORE-570017.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. SHANTHARAJU.,ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by ANAND N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVT DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES VIKASA SOUDHA, B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560001.

¶15

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KARNATAKA STATE SMALL SCALE INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION,

¶16

¶17

NC: 2024:KHC:22127 WP No. 6338 of 2024

¶18

INDUSTRIAL AREA RAJAJINAGARA BENGALURU-560010.

¶19

REGISTRAR KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA DR B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE-560001.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI.PRINCE ISAC., AGA FOR R1;

¶22

SMT. MANJULA N TEJASWI, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI. VENKATESH ARABATTI, ADVOCATE FOR R3)

¶23

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE R2 IN BEARING NO. 1. NO. ADALITHA / SIBBNDI/ 11/201718 DATED 11.07.2022 VIDE ANNEXURE-E; 2. NO.ADALITHA / SIBBNDI/ 11/2017-18/620 DATED 10.08.2022 VIDE ANNEXURE-F; 3. THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE R3 IN BEARING NO. UPA LOKAYUKTHA-1/DE/203/2022/ARE-11 DATED 29.10.22 VIDE ANNEXURE-H , BY ALLOWING THIS WRIT PETITION.

¶24

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

¶26

NC: 2024:KHC:22127 WP No. 6338 of 2024

¶27

ORDER

¶28

The petitioner has attained superannuation

¶29

while working as an Assistant General Manager with the second respondent and he has filed this petition calling in question the second respondent's Order dated 11.07.2022 [Annexure-E] for entrustment of departmental proceedings under Rule 14-A of the Karnataka Civil Services [Classification, Control and Appeal] Rules, 1957, the Corrigendum dated 10.08.2022 [Annexure-F] and the Articles of Charge dated 29.10.2022 [Annexure-H] were issued.

¶30

Sri Shantharaju, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Prince Isac, the learned Additional Government Advocate, for the first respondent, Smt. Manjula N Tejaswi, the learned counsel for the second respondent, and Sri Venkatesh Arabatti, the learned counsel for the third respondent, are heard for final disposal, while permitting the second

¶31

¶32

NC: 2024:KHC:22127 WP No. 6338 of 2024

¶33

respondent to place on record the Statement of Objections.

¶34

Sri Shantharaju, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner must definitely succeed on the ground that the departmental proceedings are commenced beyond four years as is contemplated under Rule 214[2][b][ii] of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules, 1957 [KCSR] with the issuance of Articles of Charge on 29.10.2022. The undisputed facts are that First Information Report [FIR] is registered against the petitioner by the third respondent in Crime No.4/2017 on 03.05.2017 on the ground that he insisted on payment of illegal gratification for issuance of certain contract and the petitioner has demitted the office on attaining the age of

¶35

superannuation on 30.06.2019.

¶36

The question canvassed by Sri

¶37

Shantharaju must necessarily be examined in the

¶38

¶39

NC: 2024:KHC:22127 WP No. 6338 of 2024

¶40

light of the afore undisputed facts and the provisions of Rule 214[2] of the KCSR, which reads as under:

¶41

"214.[2][b] The departmental proceedings, if not instituted while the Government servant was in service, whether before his retirement or during his re-employment.-

¶42

[i] shall not be instituted save with the sanction of the Government;

¶43

[ii] shall not be in respect of any event which took place more than four years before such institution; and

¶44

[iii] shall be conducted by such authority and in such place as the Government may direct and in accordance with the procedure applicable to departmental proceedings in which an order of dismissal from service could be made in relation to the Government servant during his service."

¶45

The provisions of Rule 214[2][b][ii] of the KCSR stipulate that if the departmental proceedings are not instituted while the Government Servant is in service i.e., before his retirement or during his re-

¶46

¶47

NC: 2024:KHC:22127 WP No. 6338 of 2024

¶48

employment, the departmental proceedings shall not be instituted save with the sanction of the Government and shall not be in respect of any event which has taken place more than four years before such institution. In the present case, the alleged event is in the month of July 2017 and the date of Articles of Charge is 29.10.2022, and therefore, definitely beyond four years.

¶49

The second respondent proposes to

¶50

contend that the proceedings are not vitiated despite the aforesaid position in law and the circumstances because sanction is accorded on 28.08.2018 [Annexure-R1] much before the expiry of four years. It is trite that commencement of the departmental proceedings is with the service of Articles of Charge and that cannot be put back to the date of sanction for commencement of the departmental proceedings. The petitioner, therefore, must succeed on this ground alone.

¶51

¶52

NC: 2024:KHC:22127 WP No. 6338 of 2024

¶53

However, this Court cannot but observe

¶54

that though First Information Report is registered in the year 2017 and sanction is accorded in the year 2018, no action is taken as is required in law until 29.10.2022 for commencement of departmental proceedings. In the absence of strong circumstances brought on record at this stage, this Court can only opine that it is a curious case of inaction, and in which event, this Court must call upon the second respondent to initiate appropriate proceedings with the issuance of show cause notice to the concerned to ascertain that this is not a case of deliberate inaction lest deliberate inaction frustrates proceedings though otherwise justified. Hence the following:

¶55

ORDER

¶56

[a] The petition is allowed, and the second respondent's impugned Order dated 11.07.2022 [Annexure-E], the Corrigendum dated 10.08.2022 [Annexure-F] and the

¶57

¶58

NC: 2024:KHC:22127 WP No. 6338 of 2024

¶59

Articles of Charge dated 29.10.2022

¶60

[Annexure-H] are quashed.

¶61

[b] The second respondent is directed to initiate proceedings as observed above and file a Report on the outcome with the registry of this Court within a period of five [5] months from today.

¶62

Sd/JUDGE

¶63

AN/-

Sri. Shekara v. Principal Secretary to Govt

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Shekara v. Principal Secretary to Govt

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Niranjan Murthy K Vs State of Karnataka

Dr Venkatesha Vs Mysore University

Sri M H Bhaskar Vs State of Karnataka

K Sunder Raj Vs the Union of India Rep by

Poorvika M.G., Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr M Subbanna Vs Union of India